|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Verifying truth in science - is evolution faith-based? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Whom do you refer to when you say Christianity? All of Christianity outside the Christian Cult of Ignorance. In fact, I provided you with a link to an open letter signed by over 10,000 US Christian Clergy that support the Teaching of the TOE and oppose Biblical Creationism.
No church I've ever gone to beleives this. I don't doubt that. The Christian Cult of Ignorance is big in the US and primarily led by Christian Pastors.
You suggest I study A Catechism of Creation for a contemporary view of creation? LOL, from what perspective. From the perspective of someone searching for truth, of course. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Garrett Member (Idle past 6187 days) Posts: 111 From: Dallas, TX Joined: |
I'm afraid you're missing the point. The fact that over 10,000 US Clergy signed off on the TOE doesn't support your statement that "Christianity" has abandonded the Genesis account. Further, it certainly doesn't add any validity to the theory itself...I mean they aren't even scientists.
Here is a list of people who are not only christians, but also scientists who support YEC: Dr. Paul Ackerman, PsychologistDr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics Dr. James Allan, Geneticist Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony) Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview) Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist Dr. Bob Compton, DVM Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry Dr. George F. Howe, Botany Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy George T. Javor, Biochemistry Dr. Pierre Jerlstrm, Creationist Molecular Biologist Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist Dr. Alan Love, Chemist Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist: Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist Dr. John McEwan, Chemist Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics Dr. David Menton, Anatomist Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist Colin W. Mitchell, Geography Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher Prof. John Oller, Linguistics Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology) Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon Prof. Richard Porter Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D. Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist: Dr. Ian Scott, Educator Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist: Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology) Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology I personally find both of our lists unimpressive and pointless really.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
Could you please replace that list with a link. As you yourself say it is pointless so why waste half a page of thread on it.
TTFN, AW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5893 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
The major problem with your assertion is that the Creationist model can also be said to be broadly supported by evidence. We all have the same evidence, it's just a matter of interpretation based on presuppositions. It would be a fascinating excercise for you to present this putative "creation model" and contrast it with biology. You'd be the first ever to put together a coherent model that explains all the facts that you claim are open to "interpretation". Unfortunately, it is probably off-topic for this thread. Perhaps you could propose a new topic by presenting this so-called "model"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
LOL
There are two major differences between our posts. A major one is that YEC is simply wrong, false, a lie. That is FACT. It really is that simple. Second, there is NO Creation Science. Not one of the people you mention has ever contributed anything in the realm of Science that is based on the Bible. The Bible has NEVER added anything to man's scientific knowledge or understanding. If you can present a single scientific advance, a single new scientific insight, that has come from the Bible, we will be happy to consider it. YEC is just false. It is a lie. Teaching it is simply encouraging ignorance and is, in fact, Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, an act of Hubris and a denial of God's gift of a mind capable of Critical Thought.
I'm afraid you're missing the point. The fact that over 10,000 US Clergy signed off on the TOE doesn't support your statement that "Christianity" has abandonded the Genesis account. Of course I did not assert that Christianity abandoned the Genesis myths. I even provided you a link to explain the significance of those tales. But they are NOT of scientific or historical merit. From both scientific and historical perspective, they are simply wrong, false, incorrect, flawed, irrelevant. That they are literally true can only be maintained by an act of willful ignorance. The current Christian Cult of Ignorance does in fact still hold the view that they are literally and factually correct. I acknowledge that in much of the US Christian Communion, Ignorance is King and Ignorance is King in all churches that support ID, Biblical Creationism and YEC positions. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cthulhu Member (Idle past 5873 days) Posts: 273 From: Roe Dyelin Joined: |
And how many are named Steve?
Also, how many are in disciplines that are relevant to the ToE, and thus can be expected to know anything about it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
My opinion - Pretty poor message.
If you're going to bring up Project Steve, you could at least explain the thing a bit, and supply a link. Better quality, please. I'm seeing dubious input from you in more than one place, and it's starting to irritate the A Moose. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Garrett
Here is a list of people who are not only christians, but also scientists who support YEC: I am going to take this person from your list if I may
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics And here we have one of his publications in peer reviewed Science magazine as per the ICR websiteAnd here we have the abstract from that publication. Time Scales and Heterogeneous Structure in Geodynamic Earth Models Hans-Peter Bunge, * Mark A. Richards, Carolina Lithgow-Bertelloni, John R. Baumgardner, Stephen P. Grand, Barbara A. Romanowicz Computer models of mantle convection constrained by the history of Cenozoic and Mesozoic plate motions explain some deep-mantle structural heterogeneity imaged by seismic tomography, especially those related to subduction. They also reveal a 150-million-year time scale for generating thermal heterogeneity in the mantle, comparable to the record of plate motion reconstructions, so that the problem of unknown initial conditions can be overcome. The pattern of lowermost mantle structure at the core-mantle boundary is controlled by subduction history, although seismic tomography reveals intense large-scale hot (low-velocity) upwelling features not explicitly predicted by the models. Perhaps you would care to point out the support for a Young Earth Creationism here in these papers. This is of course only the abstract but perhaps you could contact Baumgardner at ICR and see if he would be willing to provide a full article to you for a price. Heck I will even offer to purchase the text within reason. Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: OK, then can you list, say, half a dozen predictions of this Creationist model that were made, tested, and were supported by the evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Answer this...where is it that modern science began to flourish. The answer is of course, mainly in Europe which was largely christian. The interesting thing is that 'modern science' owes heavily from ancient and medieval science. Even more amusingly the Christian scientists ended up learning things that the Greeks, Chinese and Muslims had long ago already learned and codified.
Many historians even support this view saying that modern science owes it's foundation to a belief in a rational creator who maintains a rational creation. Undoubtedly. Many things have a foundation in religion. However, this is also undoubtedly because of the power that religion had when all these things were founded. Punk rock, for instance has its foundation in relgion - since its foundations were from 1950s rock - a style of music that borrowed from the religious gospel music. Correlation does not imply causation. Dogmatic beliefs have often hampered scientific inquiry. Would we have learned as much about the world without religion? Who knows. However, we do know there was a period in Christian Europe called the Dark Ages. The enlightenment marked a decline in religious control, and an explosion in scientific discovery. The one, no doubt feeding the other. Science seems to flourish wherever it is allowed to be, without dogmatic philosphies intruding. The less dogmatic control - the more the discovery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Coragyps....I'm taking a little artistic freedom in that statement...thought that was obvious. The point is that it was the belief by many scientists that God upheld order in the universe that led to their studying of science. What on earth makes you think that? Science only requires that there should be order in the Universe, not that it be upheld by God. This is why some scientists are atheists.
Answer this...where is it that modern science began to flourish. The answer is of course, mainly in Europe which was largely christian. And what made it start flourishing just when it did? Christianity had been flourishing for a thousand years before ... oh yes, the Renaisance of classicism.
Many historians ... ... none of whom you've named, for some reason ...
... even support this view saying that modern science owes it's foundation to a belief in a rational creator who maintains a rational creation. Like in Islam?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Here is a list of people who are not only christians, but also scientists who support YEC: You know, what I would find really impressive is a list of agnostic/atheist scientists (preferably of relevant discplines but I'm not too fussy) that support a young Earth... Actually, forget a list, just one or two would be impressive. Does anyone outside religious conviction support a young Earth???????????? Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Replying to your last couple messages:
Garret in Message 89 replying to Jar writes: That's just silly. You say that since the 1600s "Christianity" has known and acknowledged that Genesis is a myth. Whom do you refer to when you say Christianity? No church I've ever gone to beleives this. There are many denominations with varying beliefs and to stereotype them all into one box is rather foolish...and I'm guessing purposefully misleading. I agree that Jar overstated the case. Doubts about the creation account in the Bible grew gradually over time, but even during the 19th century, the period of greatest rising doubts, a fairly literal interpretation was very common. But Jar's point is still valid. What's interesting about the 19th century Christian European view of creation, especially of naturalists (the most common type of scientist during this period), is that the Biblical creation account was held to be probably true in broad outline but not in detail. That modern geology was explained by the great deluge was accepted by most, but they were less certain of the truth of the particular details, such as the days of creation, and the stories of Adam and Eve and of Cain and Abel, and so forth. It wouldn't have particular bothered many 19th century Christians if it had been scientifically discovered that God actually created the sun and moon before vegetation, rather than after as in the Genesis account. Or if it had been scientifically discovered that it actually only rained for 35 days and 35 nights. The expectation of most during this period is that science would largely confirm the Biblical accounts. But by the time the 20th century was well under way it had become apparent that scientific discovery was coming into ever greater conflict with the Biblical accounts, and it was clear that this process would only continue. While historically there has always been a tense relationship between science and religion, with the formalization of scientific study as an organized field of endeavor and with its unprecedented success in revolutionizing the world both economically and politically (the industrial revolution was just ending), open warfare between science and religion erupted in the United States, culminating in a series of pamphlets titled The Fundamentals that enumerated the unchallengeable beliefs of Christianity. You're correct that there are many and varied Christian faiths, but I think Jar's primary point is that the severely conservative form of Christianity with which you're most familiar has really only been around for less than a hundred years, and that a great many Christian faiths don't hold to these conservative views at all.
Garrett in Message 90 writes: Many historians even support this view saying that modern science owes it's foundation to a belief in a rational creator who maintains a rational creation. I'm going have to repeat the concern Coragyps expressed that you seem at times to be fabricating your arguments. A "God the Creator" who, as Christians concede, can do and has done pretty much what he wants (e.g., the creation, the deluge, the sun stopping in the sky, water into wine, feed a multitude with 7 loaves, resurrection of the dead, answering prayers) is not the basis for belief in a rational universe. The opposite is the truth, and it's why religion all over the world, including Christian religion, serves as a front for all forms of frauds and charlatans from faith healers to mediums. In other words, instead of a rational understanding of the universe, religion promotes an irrational and/or miraculous perspective. So no, many historians do not claim religion as the basis for the idea of a comprehensible universe. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Garret writes: That's just silly. You say that since the 1600s "Christianity" has known and acknowledged that Genesis is a myth. Whom do you refer to when you say Christianity? No church I've ever gone to beleives this. Mythology can be used to explain a greater truth, in the same way an allegory. There is nothing that says God can't reveal truths about Himself through mythology. As someone once said when asked about whether he believed it was an actual snake or not replied; "it doesn't matter whether it was a real snake or not, what matters is what the snake said". I'd suggest that by trying to read the Bible as a science text or as a newspaper you might miss out on what it is really trying to tell you. Here is a quote that I've used before on this forum written by CS Lewis.
Just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God’s becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth is ... a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other peoples, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology - the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truths, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024